9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1743X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ember None For the Appellant Shri R. Subramaniyam, AC (AR) For the respondent ORDER Per: D.N. Panda, None present for the respondent. 2. Revenue has come in appeal. The matter is on the Board from 09.12.2016. On some pretext or other adjournment has been sought. Notices were sent to the respondent. In the absence of the respondent to pursue the appeal against it, Revenue is prejudiced. Therefore notice was issued to show cause as to the reason why Revenues grievance shall not be redressed reversing the order of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) dated 19.01.2017. 3. On the earlier occasion of hearing it was appreciated that there was good reason advanced by Revenue to reverse the order of the ld. Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r after the show cause notice is issued, cannot alter the liability for penalty and the condition for which are clearly spelt out in Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act. The Honourable Supreme Court pointed out that penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, as the word suggest, is punishment for an act of deliberate deception by the assessee with the intent to evade duty by adopting any of the means mentioned in the Section. Therefore, the contention of the appellant that the duty was paid prior to issuance of show cause notice does not in any manner advance its case. The question that has to be considered is whether there is intention to evade payment of duty. The period which is subject matter of issue was 2001-02. The Enfo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... soon as they have been received they ought to have remitted the differential duty. But that was not done and they intentionally withheld payment of differential duty for the subsequent period which clearly established that there was wilful intention to evade payment of duty. 5. Present case is similar to the case before the Hon ble high Court of Madras as stated aforesaid. Appreciating that the respondent was in practice of paying duty on higher value and evading when there was no investigation and undervalued the goods, is liable to penalty. Accordingly it is not entitled to concession in penalty as has been held by the Hon ble High Court for which Revenue appeal is allowed. Order of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) granting concession i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
